I've been dismissed for gross misconduct. i feel this is too strong. can anyone help

Idiophreak

Takeaway_Addict wrote: »

There are still costs associated with that room being used, for example electric. Cleaning is still a cost and I would have thought ona room by room basis and even if it isn't it could be in house and ultimately extra work for staff that shouldn't have been done.

The other person no doubt if refused the bed would have got home somehow so it wasn't a necessity.

Of course what Starbucks did was wrong but it is hardly comparable to this situation.

And as for your beer comparison, if it wasn't in my authority and it wasn't life endangering (which the OP's wasn't) then no I wouldn't give them the non alcoholic beer as it wouldn't be my place to. I would however try and get the permission of the person who does have this authority.

Right...so you'd make the guy walk home and back, be unproductive the next day (because he's shattered) and feel picked on (as other people had been allowed to stay previously) for the sake of a couple of pence of electricity.

Let's leave the beer to one side then (apparently that was contentious)...this is more akin to saying "no, valued member of staff, you can't have a glass of water...I'd have to pay to wash the glass"

Most sites like the OP's have their own cleaners, I believe...so maybe they'll use a few more squirts of cleaning fluid too...and maybe a miniature imperial leather!

You're probably right on the chain of authority thing...but then again, I'm sure the guys at Starbucks said "we don't have the authority to give away water..."

Takeaway_Addict

Idiophreak wrote: »

Right...so you'd make the guy walk home and back, be unproductive the next day (because he's shattered) and feel picked on (as other people had been allowed to stay previously) for the sake of a couple of pence of electricity.

Let's leave the beer to one side then (apparently that was contentious)...this is more akin to saying "no, valued member of staff, you can't have a glass of water...I'd have to pay to wash the glass"

Most sites like the OP's have their own cleaners, I believe...so maybe they'll use a few more squirts of cleaning fluid too...and maybe a miniature imperial leather!

You're probably right on the chain of authority thing...but then again, I'm sure the guys at Starbucks said "we don't have the authority to give away water..."

If it was my authority I would judge it on its merits and make the decision from there. If I were the OP again I would have looked for someone in authority and asked them, I wouldn't have done it of my own back and risked my job.

As for the person walking home, they knew they had a shift the next day, why didn't the plan better? It's a poor excuse from teh other employee and put the OP in a difficult situation which has backfired. If he feels picked on then that is upto him, I would judge each case independently as mentioned and go from there.

I have no sympathy for the other employee but have a lot of the OP (though I think he is in the wrong).

RE Starbucks- I did mention life endangering I would allow it (ie extremely poor weather, etc)

rocksavage

A couple of people raise a valid point about me being the wrong. But equally I wasn't aware that I was doing wrong. It is only in light of being informed that I am now aware I was in the wrong. At the time I simply thought I was doing the right thing. After 9 years working there I have never had even a warning. There is no written policy in relation to this in the handbook and policy.

Main concern is the allegation of "gross misconduct" along with allegations of theft/dishonesty, deliberately going against policy. I have visited CAB three times now and just had a chat with ACAS. Both parties believe I have a valid appeal given employmentrrecord, not knowing it was policy and the fact it has been done before.

I HAVE to question here if the employee had actually gone back to the lodge on his own, went straight to bed, got up and went to work having informed housekeeping (as I requested and was led to bbelieve) then would this have still resulted in dismissal for gross misconduct. Or infact is my punishment made worse by the other employees appalling behaviour. If I am to blame for that then surely every time we issue a key to a guest if the guest makes a mess surely the welcome staff that issued the key is then in similar position to me.

The difficult thing with saying about phoning to gain authority from someone else is that I didn't realaise it was something I needed to gain authority to do. I felt it was a somewhat trivial matter at the time and given that I was a lone worker responsible for the entire site, guests and staff I made the call, which in turn does put me in the wrong, but to the extent of instant dismissal for GM, I think not

BillJones

Idiophreak wrote: »

Right...so you'd make the guy walk home and back, be unproductive the next day (because he's shattered) and feel picked on (as other people had been allowed to stay previously) for the sake of a couple of pence of electricity.

It's not clear if you are being deliberately obtuse in ignoring this part,

"I believe if he had actually gone back to the lodge and gone straight to sleep (which he told me he was doing, thus only using one set of bedding, this wouldn't have been a dismissal action) so I'm punished further for the fact that he made a mess and lied to me about his intentions. Had he said I want a party in a lodge I would have never allowed that in the slightest. "

Which rather suggests that it was more that a "few pence of electricity", or if you care so little about other people's property that you think it doesn't matter.

Idiophreak

BillJones wrote: »

Which rather suggests that it was more that a "few pence of electricity", or if you care so little about other people's property that you think it doesn't matter.

Let's make it quite clear. The cost OP is responsible is a matter of pence. OP was explicitly told he wouldn't make a mess, so it wouldn't cost much to sort the room afterwards and made the decision on that basis.

The cost the kid in question is responsible for is clearly more. To be clear, I've no question that *he* should be sacked - because he's taken the mick when OP was trying to help him...He lied and trashed the place. Not the OP.

jackyann

I hav been in a very similar position to the one OP's colleague initially told him.
I worked in residential care. There was absolutely no "official" policy about staying over when not on call (this was some time ago!) but there was a generally sympathetic attitude in odd one-off situations.
Our shifts ended at 10pm, and began at 7am; so in bad weather, or if a car didn't start easily, or there was a lot of paper-work to complete after an incident.....any of these scenarios, it was acceptable to stay in a spare bed, strip & re-make the bed & clean up the room. This was "custom & practice"

In a similar vein, I worked in a community setting where the car I used was supposed to be returned to a garage at the end of the day. In this case there was an official policy that if we felt unsafe (visiting late, problems with weather, roads etc.) we should take the car home & inform management asap. I once did thid when I worked so late that the buses had stopped running.

It seems that OP's "unofficial" mistake was to trust a colleague.
Many of us have said that he appears to have a case based on custom & practice, lack of official guidance etc.
However, i do wonder if there is more to this story!

BillJones

Well, as long as the OP checked that no-one else was staying, and that it was well cleaned, then he should be fine...

rocksavage

Hi all. Unfortunately there is nothing more to this, as far as my part is concerned. I wish there was as that way it would be easier to understand. I have just finished writing my appeal letter so will be running that up to HR tomorrow. There was only one person when I handed over the key and on foot patrols later in the evening there was no noise or cars or anything to make me suspect otherwise.

jackyann

Good luck, and please let us know how it goes

Jobseeeker

did you hear anything back about the appeal?